Saturday, October 17, 2015

Even though a significant progress has been made about what
brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, are we even closer from declaring
the matter as “case closed”?

By: Ringo Bones

The recent release of findings by the Dutch Safety Board
investigation earlier this week show definitely that a Russian made Buk
surface-to-air missile was the cause of the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight
MH17 – a Boeing 777 plane that was shot down back in July 18, 2014 while flying
its Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur route that resulted in the deaths of 298 people –
189 of which are Dutch nationals. Almost immediately, the Russian government
has challenged the findings that a Russian made Buk surface-to-air missile was
responsible for the crash.

Relatives of the crash victims were shown an early copy of
the Dutch Safety Board report a few weeks ago before it was presented to the
press. UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the report advances the search for
the truth about how MH17 was shot down.

Definitive proof that it was the Russian made Buk
surface-to-air missile that brought down the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 as
it hit the cockpit first was based on the metal fragments that got imbedded in
the bodies of the crew members. 120 metal objects were found in the body of the
First Officer, mostly in the left side of the upper torso. More than 100
objects were found in the body of the Purser. “Hundreds” of metal fragments
were found in the fragmented body of the Captain.

In the Annex X of the report – an analysis of the
high-energy objects that hit the plane conducted by the Dutch National
Aerospace Laboratory show that the damage observed on the wreckage is not
consistent with the damage caused by the warhead of an air-to-air missile –
which the Russian government insists that a Ukrainian aircraft shot down MH17
with an air-to-air missile. Instead, the report proves that the metal fragments
were consistent with the ones that result when a Russian made Buk
surface-to-air missile explodes when it comes near to its target triggered by
its proximity fuse. Specifically, bowtie shaped fragments consistent with the
damage caused by the 9N314M warhead used in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 Buk
surface-to-air missile.

Even before the Dutch Safety Board conducted its definitive
report on the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, there was already a
damning evidence that points to pro Russian separatists in the Donetsk region
were responsible to bringing down Flight MH17 using a Buk surface-to-air
missile that dates back a few days after the crash. A group of American agents imbedded
with pro Russian separatist units managed to screen-grab a Tweet between two
pro Russian separatists named “Greek” and “Major” of the “screw up” that they accidentally
launched a Buk missile that brought down Flight MH17. Would the culpability of
the incident even reach as high up as the Russian strongman Vladimir Putin?

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Despite over a century of development since the Wright
brothers first developed their own surprisingly efficient design, has propeller
technology already reached its limits?

By: Ringo Bones

Believe it or not, the Wright brothers not only managed to
make the first working heavier-than-air craft but also a surprisingly efficient
propeller that made it possible to fly in the air with relatively little engine
power. Even though other aviation pioneers that came before the Wright brothers
managed to take off, albeit briefly, into the air with the heavier-than-air
craft of their own design, it failed sustained powered flight largely because
the propellers used are highly inefficient.

After the Wright brothers developed a suitable airframe and
a gasoline engine light and powerful enough to theoretically take it into the
air, designing an effective – as in efficient – propeller proved perplexing.
The brothers recognized a salient point: that a propeller is really a wing or
airfoil moving in a spiral course. Just how it worked, however, baffled them. “With
the machine moving forward,” they later wrote, “the air flying backward, the
propellers moving side-wise, and nothing standing still, it seems impossible…
to trace the… reactions.” It took months, but in the end they had formulated
and built an efficient propeller, and on December 17, 1903 at Kitty Hawk all
was ready for the final test.

The efficiency of the original Wright propeller was a marvel
for its day: it could translate 66-percent of its engine’s rotational energy
into forward thrust. After more than a century of research in aeronautics, the
best of today’s airscrews achieve about 85-percent efficiency. Does this mean
that we can no longer design more efficiency into a typical airplane’s
propeller this day and age?

From a historical perspective, the limits of propeller
technology were probably reached around a decade before Frank Whittle build his
very first working jet engine. As piston engine performance advanced, it became
necessary also to improve the thrusting device, the propeller, which had been a
major source of trouble since the pioneer era of aviation. Until the 1920s, all
propellers were made of wood. In wet weather they were likely to absorb water,
and if one blade absorbed more than the other, the propeller became unbalanced,
setting up a tremendous vibration in the airplane. At the time, propellers
sometimes flew apart in the air. If one blade flew off and the other remained,
the resulting imbalance could – and often did – tear the engine out of the airplane.

The more powerful the engines became, the faster propellers
had to turn. This produced very high tip speeds. As with any whirling mechanism
– be it a propeller, automobile wheel or merry-go-round – speed increases with
distance from the hub, since the outer rim or tip must move a greater distance
during each revolution. High tip speed brought on potentially destructive
vibrations.

Hoping to avoid the defects of wooden propellers,
planemakers tried aluminum. But aluminum metallurgy was still at its infancy back
in the 1920s and aluminum propellers were subject to cracks and pitting and occasionally,
one would shear off in flight. The first steel propellers, tested in the early
1920s, frequently caused trouble, sometimes before they leave the ground. In
1921, Frank Caldwell, a propeller specialist, subjected an early steel
propeller to twice its rated power on an electric testing device. It appeared
to withstand the strain beautifully, so it was mounted on a stationary airplane
engine in a laboratory. The propeller was revved up to its full power – at which
point a blade broke off, sliced through an instrument control board, passed
between the heads of two technicians, flew up a flight of stairs and out
through the roof. The engine was reduced to rubble.

Years of testing and experimentation, particularly directed
to reducing the vibration inherent in propellers turning at high speed, led to
more reliable designs and manufacturing techniques. Propeller failure virtually
ceased to be a serious problem.

But those who, during the 1920s, looked ahead of to the day
when aerodynamic research would make possible high subsonic and even supersonic
velocities concluded that even the best propeller has a limited future. They
saw that the piston engine had a power potential of perhaps 5,000 horsepower,
and this would increase the problem of tip speed.

Since propeller tip speed is faster than the airplane’s
forward speed, the propeller tips of most planes flying at 450 miles per hour
would have their propeller tips rotating at supersonic speeds. At such speeds,
the thrusting efficiency of the propeller is reduced. Clearly it was time to
investigate a source of thrust free of the propeller’s limitations and thus
paving the way for the development of the jet engine.

After its shares took a beating earlier this year, will the
move for AirAsia to go private an economically viable one?

By: Ringo Bones

The founders of Asia’s number one budget carrier AirAsia Bhd
are sounding out investors to take the company private in a managed buyout
after its shares took a beating earlier in 2015 after a critical research
report was published. AirAsia boss Tony Fernandes and his longtime business
partner Kamarudin Meranun are working with banks to secure financing for the
transaction which could be launched over the next few months said the people
who did not want to be identified as the discussions were confidential.

Obtaining financing will be the key for the deal to succeed,
the people said. An AirAsia spokeswoman had no immediate comment when contacted
by Reuters. AirAsia’s market value has fallen by 40-percent to 3.51 billion
ringgit (803 million US dollars) since Hong Kong based GMT Research questioned
AirAsia’s accounts in a report back in June 2015. Will AirAsia going private prove
to be an economically viable move? Risks of managed buyouts include volatility
of capital and could prove to be a financially costly move if the US Federal
Reserve decides to increase the cost of borrowing money before the end of
2015.